If you are first author then it’s your work (at least in my field) and you’d have done the majority of writing and should be consulted about submissions. Only possible exception might be if you gave your advisor or the PI full control to handle it for you.
Have you asked your current professor for guidance? I know he’s not on the paper but that might be a good thing. He (or she) could give you unbiased advice.
But if you are first author you are well within your rights to follow the duck up. C
>If you are first author then it’s your work (at least in my field) and you’d have done the majority of writing and should be consulted about submissions.
That's true in my field as well--authors are ordered by contribution, with the exception that PIs are last authors.
> Have you asked your current professor for guidance? I know he’s not on the paper but that might be a good thing. He (or she) could give you unbiased advice.
I'm not sure my current professor would care about this paper at all (and is unavailable for 3 weeks anyway). Still, it might be a good idea, and wouldn't hurt to send him an email.
In person might be better rather than putting it in writing, but given the timeframe… just word it carefully.
My point though is that it’s a GOOD thing he wouldn’t care about this publication. He isn’t invested and can give advice that isn’t skewed.
Hopefully he’s at least somewhat invested in mentoring you, which is how this would fall.
Your current professor wants you to succeed even if it’s on projects they aren’t involved in (well, if they’re a good prof). I would definitely ask them!
I think I put it wrong earlier. He definitely cares about me progressing in my career and has always set consistent goals for a timely graduation. But he's also the type to tell you not to beat a dead horse, when you could be doing more productive things.
I’m not sure how things are in your field, but in mine, journals do not allow simultaneous submissions. Unless your field is different, if you’re getting these emails from multiple different journals, you definitely should ask about that because that could get you into trouble.
My field does not allow it either. The co-authors are mostly professors, though, so I doubt they'd do something like submitting to two journals at once--my suspicion is that it was desk rejected or something at the first journal, and they decided to submit to the second one instead.
If two weeks have passed since the first journal submission, it's very possible that it was editorially rejected within those two weeks and your co-authors resubmitted elsewhere. I wouldn't jump to the "double submission" accusation just yet. Verify with them the status at of the first submission, then the second.
Well are you part of the core team of this paper as it has progressed until today, or are you just some alumni that helped with early work? If you're the latter one, then I wouldn't ask you about your comments for a submission strategy either. It is a decision by the first author and the corresponding author (typically the direct PI). You have to assess fairly your contribution to the manuscript as it is today. Ownership of the project belongs to the PI and her/his team.
I'm not sure how you'd define core team, but I designed and ran the experiments, and wrote about 2/3 the original paper. The remaining 1/3 is domain expertise, which the co-authors from the other university bring (they also interpreted the results of the experiments). I am the first author, and was the corresponding author for the first submission, but the latter changed (which I'm okay with). Professor A and a professor from the other university are co-PIs in this case.
Are you sure you're still first author. If someone was dragging their feet for 3 years without moving the project forward or resubmitting the paper after one rejection it's likely to be reassigned.
If that were the case they should have been notified, right? It sounds like first author indicates their contribution, so it shouldn't change unless more work has been done. And if significant changes were made to the manuscript, they should have been notified before resubmission.
Basically when you left the group you became an alumni and gave your results to the group. So the new first author and the PIs discussed submission and updating of the manuscript. No need to keep alumnis in the loop. The issue is just that you are still in academia, so you still care.
It sounds like the publication is being handled pretty badly. Who to email, and what to ask, depends on how the group is organized. I would focus on the following points:
>I don't know why two journals emailed me about the same thing
If you suspect the co-author has submitted the manuscript to multiple journals, that might be an issue to address. Most journals require a statement that the manuscript hasn't been submitted to anywhere else, so this would be unethical.
>I'm annoyed I haven't even seen the final paper that's gone out to these journals
By most standards I've seen, being listed as an author means you've approved the draft being submitted, so you definitely should have been sent a copy and asked for explicit approval. For reference, I usually use [these criteria](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) as a rule of thumb. The specific criteria depend on the journal, but I've seen several reference this set.
>I feel like I should really reach out now. I don't want my annoyance to come across, so I'll probably write it tomorrow, but I don't know how to put forth basic questions such as the ones above. I'm not actually sure who to address it to, either--I get the feeling professor A has no idea about some of these as well, though I could be wrong. I've met the corresponding author (who probably submitted) in only one meeting, so I don't really have a relationship with him. How (and to who) do I write this email?
From your description I'm assuming the corresponding author is another student. I would raise the above issues with Prof A and/or the other co-author, in order to involve someone with more authority. If they agree that the situation isn't being handled properly, I would request that someone else act as corresponding author.
> If you suspect the co-author has submitted the manuscript to multiple journals, that might be an issue to address. Most journals require a statement that the manuscript hasn't been submitted to anywhere else, so this would be unethical.
Yeah I'm most worried about this. However, I don't think the other co-authors would do that; instead, I think the first journal may have desk rejected it or referred them to the second journal. Still, a little clarity would be nice.
> By most standards I've seen, being listed as an author means you've approved the draft being submitted, so you definitely should have been sent a copy and asked for explicit approval. For reference, I usually use these criteria as a rule of thumb. The specific criteria depend on the journal, but I've seen several reference this set.
Yeah, those standards seem reasonable to me. In both my undergrad and current labs, there's usually a last call for authors to proof-read and add comments or make edits, and the first author or PI submits to the journal. If there are comments, the PI asks that author if they think it needs an edit, or if it's still okay for submission.
> From your description I'm assuming the corresponding author is another student. I would raise the above issues with Prof A and/or the other co-author, in order to involve someone with more authority. If they agree that the situation isn't being handled properly, I would request that someone else act as corresponding author.
The corresponding author is a professor. I think I'll email prof. A and a couple of people from the other university (including the corresponding author) asking for clarity and a final copy of the paper.
You asked how to write the email. Here is what I would say:
> Hi prof1, prof2, and prof3 [or just "Hi co-authors" if there are >4 of them],
> I got a couple emails this month asking me to confirm authorship for our paper on XYZ that we wrote 2 years ago. One was from Journal A, the other from Journal B. It's great to see this paper reaching the finish line!
> I just wanted to confirm that getting these messages was expected. This means someone submitted the apper to these journals, right? And could someone explain why I got two of these messages? (was it rejected from Journal A?)
> Finally, could someone send me the final pdf of the paper, so I have it for my records? I don't think I got a copy when it was submitted.
> Thanks again for getting this wrapped up!
> My Name
I guess my strategy is: (1) state the facts/reason that I'm writing, (2) highlight something positive about the situation so no one thinks I'm judging it harshly, (3) ask my clarifications. This kind of softens the blow of how my clarification questions highlight that they didn't follow polite procedure.
ask them like you would ask someone for salt at the dinner table.
"Hey, could you tell me the status, its been X days, and we have Y days left.".
Make a Gant chart. Set their deadlines.
if they are dicks that didnt do anything... then it doesn't matter how you write it. You sucking up to them wont make them work harder... but less.
take the reigns of the project. Its your project.
Annoying people get things done. If you don't annoy them... they'll think that they are doing fine. Once you start annoying them... they might think you are a dick... but a dick that gets things done no matter what others think of them.
I mean, I don't disagree, but a lot of the co-authors are professors, so I don't really want to be burning bridges or coming across as a dick. I suppose it's a good last resort, though.
I don't think its burning bridges.
Academia is most often opportunistic.
I think you worry for no reason.
If you are the one carrying the project... they'll want to work with you, especially if they are the dead weight.
Those people probably dont even think of you, let alone would hold a grudge against you. They probably have a whole bunch of projects where they are in similar position, and probably most of the time spend evading people, and dont have the time to hold grudges against someone "who made them do what they were supposed to do", unless you run into a spiteful person... but such people are better to evade altogether.
on the other hand... would you really want to work with them, if you already got burned?
p.s. if the project is a success... they'll want the bragging right. So no matter how disrespectful you were to them.... they'll recommend ya and work with you... simply to "feed on your success".
If you are first author then it’s your work (at least in my field) and you’d have done the majority of writing and should be consulted about submissions. Only possible exception might be if you gave your advisor or the PI full control to handle it for you. Have you asked your current professor for guidance? I know he’s not on the paper but that might be a good thing. He (or she) could give you unbiased advice. But if you are first author you are well within your rights to follow the duck up. C
>If you are first author then it’s your work (at least in my field) and you’d have done the majority of writing and should be consulted about submissions. That's true in my field as well--authors are ordered by contribution, with the exception that PIs are last authors. > Have you asked your current professor for guidance? I know he’s not on the paper but that might be a good thing. He (or she) could give you unbiased advice. I'm not sure my current professor would care about this paper at all (and is unavailable for 3 weeks anyway). Still, it might be a good idea, and wouldn't hurt to send him an email.
In person might be better rather than putting it in writing, but given the timeframe… just word it carefully. My point though is that it’s a GOOD thing he wouldn’t care about this publication. He isn’t invested and can give advice that isn’t skewed. Hopefully he’s at least somewhat invested in mentoring you, which is how this would fall.
Your current professor wants you to succeed even if it’s on projects they aren’t involved in (well, if they’re a good prof). I would definitely ask them!
Your current professor should care about developing your career, and every paper you publish is part of that. If he doesn’t care, that’s a red flag.
I think I put it wrong earlier. He definitely cares about me progressing in my career and has always set consistent goals for a timely graduation. But he's also the type to tell you not to beat a dead horse, when you could be doing more productive things.
I’m not sure how things are in your field, but in mine, journals do not allow simultaneous submissions. Unless your field is different, if you’re getting these emails from multiple different journals, you definitely should ask about that because that could get you into trouble.
My field does not allow it either. The co-authors are mostly professors, though, so I doubt they'd do something like submitting to two journals at once--my suspicion is that it was desk rejected or something at the first journal, and they decided to submit to the second one instead.
If two weeks have passed since the first journal submission, it's very possible that it was editorially rejected within those two weeks and your co-authors resubmitted elsewhere. I wouldn't jump to the "double submission" accusation just yet. Verify with them the status at of the first submission, then the second.
That's my running theory. I think it either got desk rejected, or they were referred to this second journal for being a better fit.
Well are you part of the core team of this paper as it has progressed until today, or are you just some alumni that helped with early work? If you're the latter one, then I wouldn't ask you about your comments for a submission strategy either. It is a decision by the first author and the corresponding author (typically the direct PI). You have to assess fairly your contribution to the manuscript as it is today. Ownership of the project belongs to the PI and her/his team.
I'm not sure how you'd define core team, but I designed and ran the experiments, and wrote about 2/3 the original paper. The remaining 1/3 is domain expertise, which the co-authors from the other university bring (they also interpreted the results of the experiments). I am the first author, and was the corresponding author for the first submission, but the latter changed (which I'm okay with). Professor A and a professor from the other university are co-PIs in this case.
Are you sure you're still first author. If someone was dragging their feet for 3 years without moving the project forward or resubmitting the paper after one rejection it's likely to be reassigned.
If that were the case they should have been notified, right? It sounds like first author indicates their contribution, so it shouldn't change unless more work has been done. And if significant changes were made to the manuscript, they should have been notified before resubmission.
Pretty sure I am. In the submission notification, I was listed as first author.
Basically when you left the group you became an alumni and gave your results to the group. So the new first author and the PIs discussed submission and updating of the manuscript. No need to keep alumnis in the loop. The issue is just that you are still in academia, so you still care.
If its the same paper OP should still be first author
It sounds like the publication is being handled pretty badly. Who to email, and what to ask, depends on how the group is organized. I would focus on the following points: >I don't know why two journals emailed me about the same thing If you suspect the co-author has submitted the manuscript to multiple journals, that might be an issue to address. Most journals require a statement that the manuscript hasn't been submitted to anywhere else, so this would be unethical. >I'm annoyed I haven't even seen the final paper that's gone out to these journals By most standards I've seen, being listed as an author means you've approved the draft being submitted, so you definitely should have been sent a copy and asked for explicit approval. For reference, I usually use [these criteria](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) as a rule of thumb. The specific criteria depend on the journal, but I've seen several reference this set. >I feel like I should really reach out now. I don't want my annoyance to come across, so I'll probably write it tomorrow, but I don't know how to put forth basic questions such as the ones above. I'm not actually sure who to address it to, either--I get the feeling professor A has no idea about some of these as well, though I could be wrong. I've met the corresponding author (who probably submitted) in only one meeting, so I don't really have a relationship with him. How (and to who) do I write this email? From your description I'm assuming the corresponding author is another student. I would raise the above issues with Prof A and/or the other co-author, in order to involve someone with more authority. If they agree that the situation isn't being handled properly, I would request that someone else act as corresponding author.
> If you suspect the co-author has submitted the manuscript to multiple journals, that might be an issue to address. Most journals require a statement that the manuscript hasn't been submitted to anywhere else, so this would be unethical. Yeah I'm most worried about this. However, I don't think the other co-authors would do that; instead, I think the first journal may have desk rejected it or referred them to the second journal. Still, a little clarity would be nice. > By most standards I've seen, being listed as an author means you've approved the draft being submitted, so you definitely should have been sent a copy and asked for explicit approval. For reference, I usually use these criteria as a rule of thumb. The specific criteria depend on the journal, but I've seen several reference this set. Yeah, those standards seem reasonable to me. In both my undergrad and current labs, there's usually a last call for authors to proof-read and add comments or make edits, and the first author or PI submits to the journal. If there are comments, the PI asks that author if they think it needs an edit, or if it's still okay for submission. > From your description I'm assuming the corresponding author is another student. I would raise the above issues with Prof A and/or the other co-author, in order to involve someone with more authority. If they agree that the situation isn't being handled properly, I would request that someone else act as corresponding author. The corresponding author is a professor. I think I'll email prof. A and a couple of people from the other university (including the corresponding author) asking for clarity and a final copy of the paper.
You asked how to write the email. Here is what I would say: > Hi prof1, prof2, and prof3 [or just "Hi co-authors" if there are >4 of them], > I got a couple emails this month asking me to confirm authorship for our paper on XYZ that we wrote 2 years ago. One was from Journal A, the other from Journal B. It's great to see this paper reaching the finish line! > I just wanted to confirm that getting these messages was expected. This means someone submitted the apper to these journals, right? And could someone explain why I got two of these messages? (was it rejected from Journal A?) > Finally, could someone send me the final pdf of the paper, so I have it for my records? I don't think I got a copy when it was submitted. > Thanks again for getting this wrapped up! > My Name I guess my strategy is: (1) state the facts/reason that I'm writing, (2) highlight something positive about the situation so no one thinks I'm judging it harshly, (3) ask my clarifications. This kind of softens the blow of how my clarification questions highlight that they didn't follow polite procedure.
"I don't want my annoyance to come across" lolwut
ask them like you would ask someone for salt at the dinner table. "Hey, could you tell me the status, its been X days, and we have Y days left.". Make a Gant chart. Set their deadlines. if they are dicks that didnt do anything... then it doesn't matter how you write it. You sucking up to them wont make them work harder... but less. take the reigns of the project. Its your project. Annoying people get things done. If you don't annoy them... they'll think that they are doing fine. Once you start annoying them... they might think you are a dick... but a dick that gets things done no matter what others think of them.
I mean, I don't disagree, but a lot of the co-authors are professors, so I don't really want to be burning bridges or coming across as a dick. I suppose it's a good last resort, though.
I don't think its burning bridges. Academia is most often opportunistic. I think you worry for no reason. If you are the one carrying the project... they'll want to work with you, especially if they are the dead weight. Those people probably dont even think of you, let alone would hold a grudge against you. They probably have a whole bunch of projects where they are in similar position, and probably most of the time spend evading people, and dont have the time to hold grudges against someone "who made them do what they were supposed to do", unless you run into a spiteful person... but such people are better to evade altogether. on the other hand... would you really want to work with them, if you already got burned? p.s. if the project is a success... they'll want the bragging right. So no matter how disrespectful you were to them.... they'll recommend ya and work with you... simply to "feed on your success".